Senate Russia: its impact on the world, its invasion of Ukraine, and its future

Navalny, Terminator 2 fan!

#@%$in, eh, God Bless

 

That can't be real. Unless he really was a Terminator fan and requested it, in which case, nice.

 

It was on ABC news, said it was his favourite movie. They could have been duped also, though, never know

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/09/...ial-russian-nuclear-strike-ukraine/index.html

The Bad News: apparently, according to the United States, Russia may have been close to utilising tactical nuclear weapons when a large amount of their forces seemed close to encirclement in the second half of 2022. This indicates that Russia views the use of tactical nuclear weapons as far less escalatory than other states do.

The Good News: neither India nor China would countenance this, and apparently are both reliable interlocutors to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

In other words only one nuclear weapons state appears genuinely prepared to play chicken, and the West, China and India have them in a vice. If we a clamp the vice though do they go Solomon option on us all?

 

As I noted here, this has been the case since before the war. And is one of the most dangerous elements of global geopolitics today. And there are a worryingly growing number of voices in the Washington national security establishment who think like Putin does re: tactical, “low-yield” nukes. Let’s hope those voices are resisted.

 

Sorry to bring him into this, but I have to wonder whether or not a Trump return to the White House will make Putin more or less likely to use tactical nuclear weapons. I can think of various scenarios both for and against.

 

My reading of it, and this is not just because I despise Trump, is that under the current situation the likelihood would go up, as Putin would very likely receive assurances from Trump that the US would not respond in kind. Especially if Trump makes it known to Putin that he can do what he likes to precipitate a definitive end to the war. That said, I’d put that at about a 20% likelihood, even under Trump, as Putin is still not likely to want to incur the wrath of much of the world, including China and India, when he can keep putting his soldiers through a meat grinder until Zelensky capitulates (under a scenario of US withdrawal of support), and he takes eastern Ukraine. Under Biden? I’d put the likelihood at less than 5%.

Question then becomes: Would you get in an airplane that had a 20% chance of crashing? Or 4%? I sure wouldn’t. But if you had only those two choices, which would you choose?

 

I’d walk.

 

China and India both have official policies of no first use on nuclear weapons so it makes sense that they would feel that way, really wish that the US would adopt that as well as it seems to me like the responsible stance to take.

 

The world to Putin:



Ultimately, if Trump wins, he is just going to hand Putin, Ukraine on a silver platter, and if Biden wins re-election, it's going to continue being a quagmire for Putin as his best bet is to take peace treaty and try to rebuild his depleted military forces while the rest of the world hopes he has a "dreadful accident":



I know others are worried about his successor (I am too frankly) but I think for Putin this has turned so personal that he has to continue going forward no matter what has he was so sold on the idea they would win in "72 hours". We are moving into the third year of the war, and there is no end in sight. I think there is at least a chance with someone else that they would be willing to end the war, seeing how it's just destroying the country, though ironically, many economists are saying Russia's economy is not in the pooper due to sanctions (though that hasn't help) but mismanagement which was one of the main reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union in the first place which Putin is so keen on bringing back. It was just terribly mismanaged.

And I am sure Putin wasn't happy watching the Sweden flag flying over NATO for the first time in history today:



Good.

 

That's a bit too optimistic:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-for-life-russias-bleak-post-election-outlook

It's practically Cold War 2, been running since Putin first got elected and will run until he's dead. After that, who knows? Putin won't do any succession planning.

 

I think ‘cold war’ suggests a conflict similar to the last one. Instead this is just one heavily nuclear armed per rattling its sabres, but mostly unable to have global influence like the Soviet Union. The real Second Cold War would be if either India or China had heightened tensions with the West, which I don’t think any of these states truly want at the moment.

In the long term Russia needs the West, India or China, and likely a combination of them, since it has completely failed to diversify their economy. This means they need to ascent to the nuclear policy of at least one of these three nations and therefore makes their posture knowable. Unless, of course, they become suicidal. I don’t think broadly, besides being concerning due to the inherent unknowns around autocracies, Russia isn’t that big of a deal.

 

I… don’t buy this.

I don’t know if it’s how the article is written or the fact that the primary sources appear to be mainly hearsay and conjecture (not direct intelligence reports indicating movements or preparations by Russians to deploy nuclear weapons).

Was there a fear? Yes. A fear, however, doesn’t mean they were “close” to using them.

So, as I said when this thread was all up in arms about nuclear weapons being used around the same time… I’ve still seen no corroborating intelligence that the Russians were going to nuclear bomb the Ukrainians.

 

I’m… not particularly sure what you don’t ‘buy’?

The article notes: “The administration’s fear, a second senior administration official told me, ‘was not just hypothetical — it was also based on some information that we picked up.’” This indicates if you believe the reports from the official, not that it was definitely close, but that it may have been close, due to the intelligence they were receiving at the time.

In other words it’s somewhere between a mere fear of use and actual intelligence that it use was imminent. The very fact that they had intelligence which indicated that it was a possibility is reflective of the different escalation scale which Russia has.

 

From the same article:

“ At no time did the US detect intelligence indicating Russia was taking steps to mobilize its nuclear forces to carry out such an attack.

“We obviously placed a high priority on tracking and had some ability at least to track such movements of its nuclear forces,” this senior administration official told me. “And at no point did we ever see any indications of types of steps that we would’ve expected them to take if they were going down a path toward using nuclear weapons.” “

——-
I’m very, very hesitant to use the term propaganda but… yea, I’ll leave it at that.

Saying that it means something that Russia has the capability to bomb Ukraine is… rather obvious isn’t it? Of course it was a possibility, it is a possibility, but until we receive actionable intelligence that Russia is preparing to deploy nuclear weapons, everything else just seems like fear mongering.

 

I think you’re missing the other point made in the article, which was that they aren’t sure they’d be able to detect tactical nuclear weapons being prepared for use, like they can the big strategic ones. This is why, allegedly, the intelligence they received was so concerning, because the strike may have been able to happen without further warning and is they immediately enlisted other countries to try and dissuade any possible use.

 

I'm on the edge of my seat over the Russian elections. Who will win???

 

Just dont declare candidacy. You might just have an accident and fall off the chair and tragically die from the trauma.

 

Now, now, that doesn't happen - it'll be falling down some stairs or defenestration.

 

No I’m not missing that point; im skeptical of the point that the highlighting of the absence of knowledge is trying to make.

You don’t know if your boss is a serial killer, you have no evidence that he is a serial killer, but the fact that he COULD be a serial killer and you may have missed it means he could’ve already killed someone.

That doesn’t make much sense. It’s fearmongering. In fact the anonymous (because of course they are) people in the administration the reporter talked to explicitly state: We never saw ANY intelligence that showed Russia was preparing for a nuclear attack. That’s the article, that’s the newsworthy part, the rest is conjecture.

 

That’s simply not what has been described. To use your analogy, you have eavesdropped on communication which suggests that your boss may have been preparing to kill someone.

What the article says is that they had intelligence that suggested tactical nuclear weapons may have been in play by Russia, that they couldn’t track these weapons like they can strategic weapons, so they ensured that third parties were aware what may have been happening, that there is evidence Russia may be considering it so that India and China can lean on them.

It’s fine not to believe the story or sources, which I have left open multiple times, but I don’t think you’re comprehending what is being alleged.

 

There are three approved 'candidates'. The BBC attempted to ask the Communist[sic] Party candidate why he thought he would be a better choice than Putin, and he responded "Oh, it's not my place to say".
It's ****ing pathetic how much Putin and the Russian government crave the appearance of 'democracy' that they would go through this clown show that not even the Russian people believe.

 

Sure.

It’s possible that I’m simply just not comprehending. *shrugs*

But based on the factual evidence, like actual confirmed intelligence…. Russia never showed any signs that they were going to launch those nuclear strikes you’re suggesting that we should have been worried about.

So maybe we both are lacking comprehension in different areas. It’s not too unlikely.

 

What do you mean by confirmed intelligence though? The intelligence source in the article notes that that they believed it was more than a hypothetical, but was not seen as imminent (i.e. Russian military officials talking to one another that the use of these weapons was an option should a large number of Russian soldiers be surrounded). I never said they were going to, and then they changed course. I said that it appeared as though they may have been about to, due to the military situation and intelligence. This is important because it confirms that Russia has a lower threshold for use of tactical weapons than other powers.

 

Ain't that a coinkydink.